| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
KwarK
United States43444 Posts
On May 28 2025 15:26 ETisME wrote: the reason why China isn't invading Taiwan isn't because of US guarantee, it doesn't even exist. It's a security partnership. No | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5739 Posts
China also imports 1/3 of its food. While they could be immune to some financial sanctions, in case of a global war, they'd be in a dire position. | ||
|
Billyboy
1374 Posts
I think you need both the economic and threat of direct military action. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14073 Posts
China would have never invaded Ukraine, beacuse Ukraine was a status quo that benifited them before 2022. They would have kept up the nord streams and leveraged that to keep Ukraine out of the EU. Nothing happening in Ukraine would have changed that in the next few decades, and slowly leveraging the offer of rejoining the Russian sphere would have given them what they wanted. I suspect that Putin saw his death coming, and was hopeing the world would be weakest in his lifetime just after covid for the inflation that an invasion would rock western nations and their democracies. He was right about the inflation, he was wrong that bowing to him would be something more demographics would have been willing to swallow. The direct military action to prevent a Taiwanese invasion is directly connected to economic threats. Station three carrier battle groups of ships at diego garcia, station the rest at pearl harbor and Australia, and you cause a famine+deindustrialization of China in less than a year. China doesn't have ships with the range to get to India, nor to pearl harbor. China needs to import food, and needs to trade by sea to have an industry. If China has taken over the chip foundries that the world needs to cope with the much smaller global supply of semiconductors, who's going to be last in line to get what's left? | ||
|
Yurie
11999 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 28 2025 16:22 maybenexttime wrote: What Taiwan should do to keep the Chinese fascists at bay is develop nuclear weapons. China also imports 1/3 of its food. While they could be immune to some financial sanctions, in case of a global war, they'd be in a dire position. There’s probably some reason, treaty or something I’m unaware of. Probably a stupid question Why is just giving or loaning nukes not a thing? Here’s a couple of nukes, not enough to wipe your enemies out, but they’ll think twice. Antagonistic move for sure but hey. A big military presence in the vicinity, huge expenditure is apparently grand. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5739 Posts
On May 29 2025 02:21 WombaT wrote: There’s probably some reason, treaty or something I’m unaware of. Probably a stupid question Why is just giving or loaning nukes not a thing? Here’s a couple of nukes, not enough to wipe your enemies out, but they’ll think twice. Antagonistic move for sure but hey. A big military presence in the vicinity, huge expenditure is apparently grand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons | ||
|
KwarK
United States43444 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:19 maybenexttime wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons Non proliferation failed the moment Russia said "I'm gonna annex some land from an independent nation and if anyone tries to stop me I'll nuke them". It's over. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:19 maybenexttime wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons Point taken, but why not just cut out the middle man? In scenario A the US has plenty of adjacent military presence, and Taiwan starts its nuclear program and eventually gets there, so the US is less needed. In scenario B, the US just gives a few nukes to Taiwan and skips all that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43444 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:44 WombaT wrote: Point taken, but why not just cut out the middle man? In scenario A the US has plenty of adjacent military presence, and Taiwan starts its nuclear program and eventually gets there, so the US is less needed. In scenario B, the US just gives a few nukes to Taiwan and skips all that. Some dummies in the past thought that more nukes in more hands made nuclear war more likely and that concentrating them into a small number of users who wouldn't act badly was better. Though in fairness we didn't all die in nuclear hellfire so far and we don't know what might have happened without non proliferation so maybe it worked, idk. This might be the good timeline. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:37 KwarK wrote: Some of the countries we might rather see without nukes would argue that US invading Iraq 2.0 already killed the idea.Non proliferation failed the moment Russia said "I'm gonna annex some land from an independent nation and if anyone tries to stop me I'll nuke them". It's over. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43444 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:53 Gorsameth wrote: Some of the countries we might rather see without nukes would argue that US invading Iraq 2.0 already killed the idea. I'd argue that there's a big difference between a country needing nukes to retain its sovereignty (and Iraq is still a sovereign nation) and a dictator needing nukes to retain their head. Russia is expansionist, the US is interventionist, and there is a difference. But if you're a dictator who is very attached to your head then sure, there isn't a meaningful difference to you personally. If the US is coming for you and a nuke can save you then they're basically forcing you to get nukes. So regarding the US also being at fault, yes, but no, but also yes. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5739 Posts
Massive security breach wrt Russia's nuclear deterrent. I'm sure the US is pressuring Ukraine not to make use of this. I wonder if Ukraine can somehow make use of this. Details extend to power grids, IT systems, alarm configurations, sensor placements and reinforced structures designed to withstand external threats. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15726 Posts
Although taken from another perspective, you could perhaps argue this is one of the greatest threats to our planet? The security of Russia's nuclear facilities is a concern to everyone. Terrorist groups or other bad actors managing to gain access to anything could trigger nuclear exchanges. Maybe I am misunderstanding, or maybe this truly is what it appears to be, but this is a historic moment if true. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5739 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43444 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15726 Posts
On May 29 2025 06:29 KwarK wrote: I’d assume there’s more to the security than the secrecy of the blueprints. Or to put it another way, if all you needed was the blueprints then in a country as corrupt as Russia they’d have already been bought and whatever damage could be done would have been done. It covers more than blueprints. It also includes extensive procurement, security, and logistical data. One thing that is interesting about this, is that Russia's arsenal being so huge and spread across such a large area means it will be extremely difficult to make changes to invalidate this leak. That's part of where my concern of terrorist organizations gaining some level of access comes in. Ignoring terrorist organizations, think about North Korea and their extensive fleet of hackers and spies. Other nations have much of the same. Russia being so big means its quite challenging to cover it all at the same time. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35165 Posts
On May 29 2025 05:54 maybenexttime wrote: https://danwatch.dk/en/serious-security-breach-russian-nuclear-facilities-exposed/ Massive security breach wrt Russia's nuclear deterrent. I'm sure the US is pressuring Ukraine not to make use of this. I wonder if Ukraine can somehow make use of this. Attempting to attack their nukes or stop their nukes from being able to launch is one of the clauses written out in Russia's nuclear doctrine. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
780 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Invitational
PiGosaur Cup
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
sOs vs Scarlett
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
All Star Teams
MMA vs DongRaeGu
Rogue vs Oliveira
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
